The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. An act beyond the scope of the representative director's power of representation should be protected if the act belongs to the act within the scope of the company's ability to exercise rights, a third party who is unaware of the restriction of the power of representation is believed to be a representative act of the company. The representative director's act within the scope of the power of representation is once effective even if the representative director abused his authority for the purpose of pursuing his own interest or a third party's interest, regardless of the company's profit.

However, if the other party to the act knew or could have known the intention of the representative director, the act shall be null and void against the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da34045, Mar. 26, 2004). Furthermore, the court determines the fact-finding with free conviction in accordance with logical and empirical rules, based on the social justice and the principle of equity, taking into account the overall purport of pleadings and the result of examination of evidence. As such, unless it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the value judgment and fact-finding belong to the discretion of the fact-finding court, and

(2) On February 2, 202, the court below held that the act of preparing a notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) in the judgment of the court below, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, by which, as the representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), the Defendant, as joint issuer D and E, amount of KRW 2.5 billion, issue date of KRW 2.5 billion, August 25, 201, and September 21, 201, the date of payment, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the act of preparing a notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating a declaration of intent to recognize compulsory execution, regardless of D’s profit, D bears the obligation and abused the representative director’s authority for the purpose of facilitating E’s personal debt loan.